ase Digest on PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO MAGAT G.R. NO.

130026 (2000) Double jeopardy Facts: On the basis of a void plea bargaining, the RTC rendered a judgment convicting A of the crime of rape. Thereafter, the cases were revived at complainants instance on the ground that the penalty was too light. Trial ensued and the RTC convicted A of rape and sentenced him to the penalty of death. Issue: Whether there has been double jeopardy. Held: No. The judgment rendered by the trial court which was based on a void plea bargaining is also void ab initio and can not be considered to have attained finality for the simple reason that a void judgment has no legality from its inception. Thus, since the judgment of conviction rendered against A is void, double jeopardy will not lie. ________________________________________________________________________DIGEST on PEOPLE v. MAGAT RE: Double Jeopardy This is a case of incestuous rapeTwo informations were filed against appellant.Upon arraignment, he pleaded guilty but bargained for a lesser penalty for each case.The mother of the complainant and the public prosecutor agreed and an order was issued the same day imposing tenyears imprisonment for each case .After three months, the cases were revived at the instance of the complainant on the ground that the penalty was too light. Appellant was re-arraigned and he entered a plea of not guilty.Two months later, he entered a new a plea of guilty.The court then imposed the penalty of death. He now appeals on the ground that there was double jeopardy upon the re-arraignment and trial on the same information. Held:

The first order issued by the trial is void ab initio on the ground that the accuseds plea is not the plea bargaining contemplated by law and the rules of procedure. The only instance where a plea bargaining is allowed under the Rules is when the accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense.Sec 2 Rule 116 (note that there is a new set of Rules of Criminal Procedure).Here the reduction of the penalty is only a consequence of the plea of guilt to a lesser penalty.The appellant did not plead to a lesser offense but pleaded guilty to the rape charges and only baargained for a lesser penalty.He did not plea bargain but made conditions on the penalty to be imposed.This is erroneous because by pleading guilty to the offense charged, accused should be sentenced to the penalty to which he pleaded. It is the essence of a plea of guilty that that the accused admits absolutely and unconditionally hid guilt and responsibilty for the offense imputed to him. Hence, an accused may not foist a conditional plea of guilty on the court by admitting his guilt provided that a certain penalty will be meted unto him. Since the judgment of conviction is void, double jeopardy will not lie. Whatever procedural infirmity in the arraignment of the accused was rectified when he was re-arraigned and entered a new plea.he did not question the procedural errors in the first arrraignment and having failed to do so, waived the errors in procedure. Under the present rule, if the present rule, if accused enters a plea of guilty the trial courts are now enjoined to conduct searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full comprehension of the consequences of his plea, to require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt and precise degree of culpability, and to ask if he so desires to present evidence in his behalf and allow him to do so.